Declaration of pecuniary interests 101

Alll this stuff about Chris Finlayson not declaring his company directorship is interesting and puzzling.

Before being elected to parliament, I was the sole Director of Inzight Communications (my little company based in Dunedin) and I resigned as Director on the morning of 9 November 2008 ( day after election).

But when I filled out the pecuniary interest declaration in January 2009 I sought advice (from the Registrar’s office) and was told I needed to declare my directorship because I was still a Director on 8 November 2008, the day of the election. Which I duly did.

I have stuff-all assets (house, section and a bit of super) but I’ve sought advice from the office of the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests several times. Because I want to get it right. So why does Chris Finlayson allegedly seek advice from his lawyer and not from the Registrar’s Office?

This entry was posted
on Sunday, June 27th, 2010 at 11:59 pm and is filed under #OpenLabourNZ, Attorney-General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

44 Responses to “Declaration of pecuniary interests 101”

N1 ClCu. IMO, the NACT mindset is that protocol, rules and regulations are there to be bent or circumvented as far as is possible. You can observe this in a lot of the plays that they make. They may appear to abide by the regs in public, but deals are cut in the back rooms with sleight of hand and obeying the spirit of the regs is not even considered.

Points are awarded for playing the game to the very edge to see how much benefit you can suck out of it for yourself, in other words.

Naturally, then, NACTs aren’t apologetic in the slightest when they get caught out because they know that’s the nature of this style of play; its the nature of this game. Sometimes the ball lands a smidgeon on the wrong side of the line, no big deal. In fact if you are a pro and playing it to the consumate edge, it will happen occasionally and actually means you are doing it right. From their value system.

That’s why you never see any sincere hand wringing from the born and bred NACT camp for doing the wrong thing, the most you will get is the appearance of being sorry for the cameras. Sorry for being caught that is.

Many lawyer’s exhibit an arrogant streak that manifest itself in this manner “My colleagues and I are the arbiters of the law; why should I seek advice of another”. I would suggest that this streak would be magnified once the prefix MP was added their name.

Its seems Chris Finlayson has been caught by his own arrogance; not the type of lawyer or man we want for the Attorney General position.

Clare without passing judgement on Chris, some people are just naturally very honest so always want to make sure everything is above board with the i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

I would even say that this is something girls do more than boys – boys seem to have this inherent thing where they always try to get away with as much as possible….they just love to push the boundaries….even the really good honest ones.

So perhaps re Chris he took some care to declare things but didn’t exhaust all avenues….

P.s. I note that poor Chris has the misfortune of being a lawyer AND a politician…..lawyers interestingly in the latest Readers Digest trust poll are above politicians who are slightly more trusted than telemarketers and slightly less trusted than sex workers…..!

Lawyers, while above politicians I think were “sandwiched” (according to the woman from Readers Digest) between towbar drivers and an equally likable profession – real estate agents!

when I filled out the pecuniary interest declaration in January 2009 I sought advice (from the Registrar’s office) and was told I needed to declare my directorship because I was still a Director on 8 November 2008, the day of the election. Which I duly did.

As it happens, the advice was bad. Debts, directorships etc, only need to be declared on an “as at” basis. If you weren’t a director on 31 January it didn’t need to be declared (Standing Orders, Appendix B, clause 4). Some things do need to be declared from the date of the election (Standing Orders, Appendix B, clause 8(2)(d)), but this only related to “activities” under clause 7 (see clause 8(1)) – things like gifts from lobbyists, subsidised travel, and discharged loans. Old, no longer live, directorships do not need to be disclosed.

Which isn’t to say it’s stupid to put them down out of an abundance of caution, but the advice you got was wrong. Given whom it was from, that’s interesting in itself.

If Finlayson asked for advice from his lawyer, he should ask for his money back. It seems like an easy scapegoat to blame some unknown person. In this case a lawyer who didnt know the meaning of the word ‘director’.
Looks and smells like a coverup to me. Also Finalyson is the most reclusive front bencher around and could do with a good kick in the pants from the media

Does this mean Chris didnt trust the advice of those paid for by taxpayer to give advice to MP’s on this stuff, so he got his own legal advice? Did this legal advice come from a specialist in this particular area? I know it seems an obvious thing but lawyers dont know everything about everything. For example, someone could ask me for advice on this very issue and I would be investigating it from scratch because i have no knowledge of this area.

Well, people choose to run for office, and if you choose to run for office, then theoretically, you choose to play by the rules.

Search for:

About

These are the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about - and we'd like to hear what you think too. What you’ll read are the individual opinions of MPs. We won’t always agree with each other and sometimes our opinions may change.